2018 (1) TMI 643 - HC - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - threshold limit for exemption - Whether denial of benefit of SSI Exemption N/N. 9/2003 was just, legal and proper when admittedly the turnover for FY 2003-04 was less then ₹ 3 crores that is the prescribed time? - Held that - the appellant could not appear before the Tribunal and on facts, the appellant has a chance to distinguish the judgment which sought to be relied upon by the Tribunal - No facts or reasoning has been given by the Tribunal except relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. 2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT - without entering into merits of the case only on the ground that the appellant was not served on the new address, the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal on the second issue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Tribunal's judgment allowing department's appeal.
2. Denial of benefit of SSI Exemption Notification.
3. Violation of Principle Natural Justice and CESTAT Rules in passing ex-parte order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's judgment allowing the department's appeal. The High Court framed questions of law regarding the denial of SSI Exemption Notification benefit and violation of natural justice in passing an ex-parte order. The appellant contended that the address change was known to the department, but the final hearing notice was not served at the new address. As a result, the appellant could not appear before the Tribunal to present their case.

2. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's order lacked facts or reasoning, solely relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court noted that the appellant not being served at the new address was a crucial issue. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the violation of natural justice and CESTAT Rules. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the first issue regarding the denial of SSI Exemption Notification benefit.

3. Ultimately, the High Court decided in favor of the assessee against the department on the issue of violation of natural justice and CESTAT Rules. The Court emphasized that the decision did not touch upon the first issue. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the second issue being resolved in favor of the appellant.